The measure called for the creation of a selection panel that would review and recommend candidates to the governor for appointment to open judicial seats. The governor would then have been in charge of appointing a candidate to the position for no more than 2 years after which a retention election would be held. They would have had to garner approximately 55% of the vote to stay in office. If the judge was retained they could proceed to fulfill the remainder of the 6 year term and face a retention election for a second term. If the voters rejected the judge in the first election, the process would have started from the beginning and another candidate would have been appointed.[2][3]

Text of measure

Title

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide for the appointment of Supreme Court justices and District Court judges by the Governor for their initial terms from lists of candidates nominated by the Commission on Judicial Selection, with subsequent retention of those justices and judges after independent performance evaluations and voter approval?

Support

Amendment supporters argued that the appointment process would result in more qualified judges and would remove the influence of campaign money. Retired U.S. Supreme CourtJustice Sandra Day O’Connor sent Nevada officials a letter in support of the proposal. She wrote, "Citizens can be confident that appointed judges are insulated from special interests who would seek to buy justice through campaign donations."[2][5]

The proposed measure was co-authored by The Busick Group in 2006 with the direction of Sen. William Raggio.[6] Also in support of the proposed measure was retired Nevada Supreme Court Justice Bill Maupin.[7]

Irwin Molasky of Nevadans for Qualified Judges, a committee in support of the proposed measure argued that the measure would give the public more control in eliminating inadequate judges. "Arizona has had it for years. Nevada is way behind. This is our one-chance opportunity," said Molasky.[7]

Tactics and strategies

In September 2010, supporters announced that they planned to step up their campaign efforts. Vice Chairman of Nevadans for Qualified Judges Irwin Molasky said that they planned to educate voters on the proposed plan.[8]

Opposition

Opponents, on the other hand, said that the amendment removed voting rights and placed the decision only in the hands of a few - the selection panel.[2] "I’m against anything that alters the voters’ rights to pick judges. Judges should be held as accountable as any other public official," said Republican political consultant Sig Rogich. The Nevada Eagle Forum also opposed the change.[9]

Commercials and videos

"Yes on Question 1" videos and commercials:

"No on Question 1" videos and commercials:None available

Media editorial positions

Opposition

The Reno Gazette-Journal was opposed to Question 1. "So, Strike One: Question 1 takes away voting rights and calls for a gubernatorial appointment instead. Do you believe there would be not politics involved there? How are those U.S. Supreme Court and District Court appointments working out for you? Strike Two: Nevada voters have consistently rejected any proposal that removes their right to vote...Strike Three: The question states the financial impact cannot be determined 'with any reasonable degree of certainty,'" said the editorial board.[10]

Polls

On April 5-7, 2010Mason-Dixon Polling & Research conducted a poll, on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which found that 28% of polled registered voters were in favor of the proposed amendment, while 59% were opposed and 13% were undecided. A grand total of 625 registered voters were polled. The margin of error was +/- 4%.[11]

On July 12-14, 2010Mason-Dixon Polling & Research conducted a poll, on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and KLAS-TV, Channel 8. The poll found that 27% of voters were in favor of the proposed measure, while 54% were opposed and 19% were undecided. A total of 625 voters were polled. According to reports, the margin of error was +/- 5%.[12][13]

On October 25-27, 2010Mason-Dixon Polling & Research conducted a poll, on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and KLAS-TV, Channel 8. The poll revealed that 37% of polled registered voters support Question 1, while 46% were opposed and 17% were undecided. A total of 625 registered voters were polled. The poll had a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points.[14][15]

Legend

Position is ahead and at or over 50% Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll

Pollster

In favor

Opposed

Undecided

Number polled

April 5-7, 2010

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research

28%

59%

13%

625

July 12-14, 2010

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research

27%

54%

19%

625

Oct. 25-27, 2010

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research

37%

46%

17%

625

Controversies

On October 25, 2010Stones' Phones Inc., a company hired to program automated calls in support of Question 1, called an estimated 50,000 Nevadans between midnight and 1:15 a.m. The firm and the campaign group apologized for the incorrectly programmed calls. The company issued a follow-up call in the afternoon to residents in apology. The call included a phone number and email to lodge complaints.[16]

The calls featured retired U.S. Supreme Court JusticeSandra Day O'Connor, however, following the mis-timed calls O'Connor released a statement saying she did not authorize the use of her comments for the automated calls. She said, "I did not authorize the use of my recorded statement as part of automated telephone calls to Nevada residents, and I regret that the statement was used in this way." O'Connor has been an active supporter of Question 1.[17]

According to reports, on the call she said, "When you enter a court the last thing Nevadans want to worry about is whether the judge is more accountable to a campaign contributor or to a special interest group than to the law."[18]

In response to O'Connor's support of the measure, some argued that it was a violation of the judicial code of conduct. Conservative legal groups expressed their concern regarding her activity. In response O'Connor said, "In addition, I view my efforts in support of judicial reform as consistent with the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges."[19][20]

According to reports, the state of Nevada did not have rules or laws that governed when candidates or political committees could make calls to voters. Nevada voters, however, did have the option to add their name to a "do not call" list but it wasn't guaranteed, according to state officials, that they would't be contacted.[21]